Secularism is highly necessary if India has to survive as a nation. But apart from survival of Indian nationalism and Indian unity, secularism is necessary for modern democratic polity. And this need for secular polity becomes much greater if the country happens to be as diverse and plural as India. Secularism is a great need for democratic pluralism.

Our leaders and freedom fighters were well aware of need for secular and modern democratic polity for India. They also knew that India is highly religious country and that secularism in the sense of hostility or indifference to religion will never be acceptable to people of India. Secularism was never meant to be indifference to religion by India leaders. It is for this reason that even most orthodox among Hindus and Muslims accepted it as a viable ideology for Indian unity and integrity.

The most Orthodox Muslim 'Ulama of Deobandi school preferred secular India to Muslim homeland or theocratic Pakistan. They outright rejected the idea of Pakistan when mooted by Jinnah. They denounced two nation theory on the basis of religion. Nehru, though personally agnostic, but never imposed agnostic or atheistic secularism. He was too much of a democrat to attempt that. He said in his answer to a query by an Indian student at Oxford University in fifties that in U.K. state has a religion (Anglican Christianity) but people of England are quite indifferent to religion but in India state has no religion but people are very religious. Therefore, in Indian situation secularism means equal protection to all religions.

Nehru was greatly committed, more than anyone else in post-independence India, to the concept of secularism. He never compromised on this question. He was well aware of the fact that secularism is a great cementing force for the diverse people of India. He, as an idealist, thought that with spread of modern scientific and technological education secularism would spread and find greater and greater acceptability. However, not only it that did not happen that way but communalism and obscurantism spread with more intensity than secularism.

There are several reasons for this all of which we cannot analyse here. Some of them of course must be mentioned. Like Nehru very few people were genuinely committed to secularism in the Congress. Many eminent Congress leaders were opposed to it in their heart of heart. They tried to sabotage Nehruvian vision in his own lifetime and they became much more active after his death. Nehru could not pay much attention to educational system in his lifetime. It could not be reformed. The old textbooks with communal approach introduced during the British period were never changed. The Congress leaders themselves approved of them. Those who did not, could not show enough courage to demand essential changes in history textbooks. Thus most of the Indians grew with subtle or pronounced communal mindset.

In fact the educated were thus more affected with communal virus than the illiterate masses who never studied in schools and colleges. Similarly urban areas were more affected with communal virus than rural areas. Formation of Pakistan also greatly affected thinking of educated middle class Hindus and they looked upon Muslims as responsible for creation of Pakistan. They were never explained the complex political factors which brought about existence of Pakistan.

Thus the education system did not cultivate secular outlook and conservative political outlook continued to strengthen communal mindset among the educated middle classes. The Muslim leaders in independent India, after the death of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Zakir Husain, could not provide moderate and wise leadership to Muslim masses. They also remained not only extremely cautious in their approach but never prepared Muslim masses for modern secular polity in India. They were more insistent on minority rights than on necessity for change.

This attitude was further strengthened among these leaders due to frequent occurrences of communal riots. The Jabalpur riot of 1961 shook Nehru as much as Indian Muslims to the core. For the first time they became greatly apprehensive of their security and began to withdraw in their shell. This further reinforced conservatism and became a hurdle in developing secular outlook among Muslims. The Jabalpur riots were followed by more intense communal violence in Ahmedabad in 1969 and Bhivandi-Jalgaon in 1970.

The end of seventies and early eighties witnessed number of; major communal riots in which hundreds were killed brutally. The RSS propaganda, on the other hand, was bringing more and more Hindus in the fold of Hindutva. All these developments were sure prescription for increasingly weakening secular forces in the country.

The decade of eighties saw rise of religious militancy among Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. This decade also witnessed horrendous communal violence in North India. It was again during this decade that Khalistan movement came to the fore on one hand, and the Shah Banu and Ramjanambhoomi movement; on the other. Mandal commission was implemented by V.P.Singh towards the end of eighties, which further gave boost to Hindutva forces. The caste stratification became much more pronounced and led to Hindu militancy apprehensive of division of Hindu votes.

And in the beginning of nineties Babri Masjid was demolished which pushed Indian secularism to the brink. It was the greatest disaster and was followed by Bombay riots, which shocked whole world.

Thus we see Indian secularism has followed a tortuous course all through in the post-independence period. It is not surprising in a underdeveloped country like India with its immense poverty, insurmountable levels of unemployment and widespread illiteracy. The BJP, which came to power using its Hindutva card is not likely to give it up in near future. With every election it intensifies its Hindutva agenda. The other members of the Sangh Parivar, specially the Vishva Hindu Parishad, tend to be more irresponsible as it does not have to govern. It assumes extremist postures and threatens minorities. It is this irresponsible extremism which resulted in the Gujarat carnage which again shook the world. The BJP Government tends to be buffeted between the VHP extremism and National Democratic Coalition compulsions. It thus fails to adopt consistent policies.

In the given political circumstances the future of secularism does not seem to be bright. However, one should not take short- term view based only on given context. Human beings have always struggled to transcend their given situation. A purely contextual view tends to be realistic but also restricted one. A vision, on the other hand, may not always be realistic but has a much broader sweep. And it is this broader sweep which shapes new realities and these new realities enables us to shape our future.

Though religion will never cease to be a force in human life secularism will not loose its relevance either. The modern democratic polity cannot be sustained without the state being neutral to all religions or equally protective for all religions as Nehru put it. And it is in this sense that secularism in India will become more and more relevant. It should also be noted that we should not pose secularism and religious orthodoxy as binary opposites, as some rationalists tend to do.

Faith will always remain an important component of human behaviour and there will always remain an element of orthodoxy in faith behaviour. Rational faith is certainly not an impossibility but it tends to be an elitist phenomenon. On the level of masses orthodoxy reigns rather than rationality, even in advanced societies. Also, economic advancement and reduction in levels of poverty and illiteracy will ultimately sideline communal bigotry and enhance forces of secularism. Religious orthodoxy, if not challenged by the other's threats, would not yield to communalism. There is a Laxman Rekha between religious orthodoxy and communal discourse.

India has stupendous challenges to meet due to its economic backwardness and unemployment, which sharpen communal struggle. Unemployed and frustrated youth can easily be induces to think and act communally as he thinks his unemployment is due more to his caste or community than economic backwardness. Thus chances of secularism will certainly brighten with more economic progress and reduced levels of unemployment, particularly educated unemployment.

Indian democracy, which is here to stay, is in itself a guaranty for future of secularism. A pluralist country like India needs secularism like life-blood. India has been pluralist not since post-modernism but for centuries and no one can wish away its bewildering pluralism and this pluralism can be sustained only with religiously neutral polity. India has been passing through very critical phase now but there is nothing to despair. The present communal turmoil is not here to stay. It would certainly yield to more stable secular polity.

Asghar Ali Engineer is executive director of Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai.